Undeclared mods are happening but the problem isn't what I would call rampant. Our change from a 5PI wide class with equal PAX to an iPAX a couple of years ago (Individual PAX system) means that even a small amount of undeclared modification can result in a different championship finishing position. This is really just one rule catching up to match others.

It's not as automatically harsh as the current/past rule which is an automatic bump to MOD1 for the event no matter what class you started in. That is what WAS in place for the last decade or more, but only if you had enough unclaimed PIP's that you should be bumped to the next class. We never updated that for the iPAX system because we missed it and protests are so rare in OTA that it went several years without being noticed. Undeclared PIP penalties right now that aren't enough to bump you a class are handled by guidelines in the GCR's which, lets be honest, most competitors DON'T read.

The following suggestion is not just in response to the rule change proposed above, but also to make the scoring clearer to all competitors. Or "transparent", using the current corporate buzz-word.

Before the introduction of iPAX in 2016 a competitor’s PAX factor was clear: if your car was in, for example, T3 then your PAX factor was 0.880 (I’m taking this from the copy of the 2013 Rules and Regs. Hopefully it’s correct).

With iPAX your iPAX factor depends on your PIP schedule submitted for the event. Your iPAX factor can vary from event to event depending on the mods you make between events. This introduces an extra bit of administrative burden to the volunteers doing the scoring but it generally seems to have worked out.

To make everything clearer to all competitors, I suggest that instead of listing the iPAX factor used for each competitor in calculating the interim results during competition, the competitor’s PI be listed.

The advantage is that it would be clear to the competitor if the PIP schedule he (or she) submitted for the event was used (or not used) to calculate the result. It might also be clearer to the competitor (and others) if undeclared mods were present on the car.

While you can also calculate your PI from your iPAX factor:

Slow tracks:

PI = (iPAX – 0.76024) / 0.0024

Fast tracks:

PI = (iPAX – 0.64036) / 0.0036

But not everyone is going to bring a calculator to the track and want to do this. So it would make everything much clearer to the competitors to just list the PI for each competitor.

I suggest the PI for each competitor be listed in both the interim results, shown on the TV during competition and in the final results published on the results archive web site. This way, if a competitor’s PI for the event was not correct, it would be immediately obvious to the competitor. It would not place any additional administrative burden on the scorers – just list the PI instead of the iPAX. But it would be clearer to the competitors which PI was being used for the event.

As Stephen points out, undeclared mods may not be rampant, but if someone made a mod before the event and inadvertently forgot to include it in his or her PIP schedule, it would be more obvious.

Being one of the few witnesses to Kelly's incident I feel the need to comment here.
Kelly, I'm pretty sure your injuries were a result of the initial impact with the tire wall and not the subsequent slow speed rollover off of the tire wall. Would you not agree with this?
This would corroborate with the suggestion being put forth by Dave, in that if you had been wearing a 5 point restraint your injuries would have been minimal, it was just bad luck that your car got high enough on the tire wall to fall off to the side once the forward motion had stopped.
Again not all incidents are the same but in my years at OTA there have been many more frontal and/or side impacts than rollovers so that would suggest that enhanced seat restraints would be a benefit in the majority of cases.
Of course, nothing in life is 100% certain, just wanted to throw out some more info to add to this discussion.
Perry

Perry, yes my injuries were as a result of the frontal impact. The speed the car hit the tire wall at was much higher than it appeared to be. I know, I was there!
I actually have no complaints with the way the car held up. It was designed by engineers to save you in case of accident and that's another reason we have to be careful about making changes to those designs. We can actually make the car less safe with certain modifications.
And my rollover was indeed a slow rollover after the initial impact with the wall. That is precisely why I feel the way I do. Even though the car rolled slowly, there was still some degree of intrusion in the front middle area of the roof where the strength is at its least. As I've said, with OEM safety equipment I was able to move around and avoid any issue with the roof. Had it have been more severe with more intrusion, it would be that much more important that I be able to avoid that intrusion.
Hence my particular point of view: if held in place with a harness and no rollover protection, that is a dangerous situation.
It seems obvious to me that in that case rollover protection is a must so that nothing comes down on your head!
I am obviously on the side of either
(A). All OEM safety equipment - or -
(B). the full Monty of modified safety equipment (harness, HANS & roll bar at a minimum).

As you know, when I was Director, the safety of competitors was my first concern. I no longer compete in OTA but I believe the research and personal experience that I can offer have merit.
I simply do not want to see unnecessary injury to anyone in the series!
And, yes I know - none of us do. But lets tread very carefully with this issue. Do the research. Find out what they do in other series. Don't rush to a conclusion. And don't let the cost factor be a concern. I've competed, so I know - this sport is expensive no matter how you look at it. One should not skimp on safety.

1) most everyone agrees that a head on or frontal impact is more likely to happen than a roll over

2) head and neck restraints likely prevent occipital bone fractures in frontal impacts. Not so sure that OEM 3 points and airbags do as good a job as they are designed for slower impacts but admit I have no data. Certainly airbags are not useful in a roll over.

3) Why are we insisting that to avoid the more common type of impact that all competitors need to protect them selves from the less common type of impact first?

1) most everyone agrees that a head on or frontal impact is more likely to happen than a roll over

2) head and neck restraints likely prevent occipital bone fractures in frontal impacts. Not so sure that OEM 3 points and airbags do as good a job as they are designed for slower impacts but admit I have no data. Certainly airbags are not useful in a roll over.

3) Why are we insisting that to avoid the more common type of impact that all competitors need to protect them selves from the less common type of impact first?

The first and third statement are actually ridiculous Dave. You are implying things that are not true in the first one. You, and two others (?) are the only people that agree that a HANS and harness's should be aloud without a roll bar.

The majority of people in here are saying they do not agree that you should be aloud to run a harness and a HANS device without a roll bar. In fact, a few people are saying you should need all safety gear (HANS, harness, full cage and seat) or nothing at all and run full OEM.

The reason everyone is saying to avoid the more common type of impact (frontal) they need to protect themselves from the less common type (roll over) IS BECAUSE IT CAN STILL HAPPEN!

Safety is a system. In my opinion it should be all or nothing. But in the interest of people needing to drive the cars they compete with to the track, a happy medium of roll bar, fixed back seat, harness and HANS protects against the most common types of incidents possible at OTA, lowering the percentage of injury across the board. HANS and harnesses without a roll bar may decrease the chance of injury in one accident (frontal) but it increases it in a roll over. Again, it seems counter intuitive to me.

At the end of the day motorsports is dangerous, we all take a chance when we get behind the wheel no matter what safety gear is in place.

The first and third statement are actually ridiculous Dave. You are implying things that are not true in the first one. You, and two others (?) are the only people that agree that a HANS and harness's should be aloud without a roll bar.

At the end of the day motorsports is dangerous, we all take a chance when we get behind the wheel no matter what safety gear is in place.

Actually there are a lot of people both in and out of OTA that agree with statement 1. This is whole basis of why Chin motorsport does not have the restrictions that we do. Here is a quote from one of the ambassadors of the Motorsport-Safety Foundation

"Any driver in motorsports has a higher statistical probability of impacting a fixed object (barrier, tires, armco), than the probability of having a rollover."*

OTOH, I have no issue with insisting that if you are going to use a harness that you need a minimum of Hans type device, and likely a cage vs just a bar , and if you really want to be safe, a containment seat should be required. My concern is if something happens to a competitor that could have been prevented by a head and neck restraint which we told them they could not use, we are potentially liable. Just like having drivers sign their tech inspection sheets for every event. They are taking the responsibility, not the series.

Obviously driving on a track at high speed has its risks but I don't think we have enough data to say that option A is considered safer than option B or C. Right now it appears we are just guessing.

The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.

1) Propose to allow Toyo 888 , 888R and RA-1 tires as zero PIP tires

Let the discussion begin.

I don't agree with revising the tire regulations to allow a brand a competitive advantage. If you want to lower the bar, I recommend lowering it for everyone. As previously posted, I propose the following change:

.2 Installation of “non-Premium” R compound tires, defined as DOT legal competition tires with a UTQG tread wear rating of less than 100 and that have a molded tread pattern with non-circumferential siping. 5PIPs

The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.

4) Increase the HI of all cars with dual clutch transmissions by 5

5) Charge 1.5 PIPs for the addition of a sequential transmission

Let the discussion begin.

I think most would agree that there is a performance advantage using either of these transmissions versus a 'Three Pedal' type of gearbox. The case could also be made for a 'Dog Box', and a multi-speed ECU controlled automatic transmission, and a paddled shifted style transmission. The lines become very blurred between all these types.

I would suggest that the 'committee' study all these versions and present some recommendations or options back to competitors. Educate us all please.

__________________
Jud - TeamVDG - OTA#47

'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy' by Browne & Frey

The CCC has been actively discussing potential rule changes for next year's OTA. Here is what we are suggesting so far.

6) Revise the penalty section of the rule book to charge a minimum of 10 PI for every undeclared modification PIP up to expulsion from the event at the choice of the stewards.

Let the discussion begin.

Does anyone really know if anyone has undeclared mods?

I have always been a proponent of rules enforcement. The listing of possible penalties sends a clear message to those who might circumvent rules that they will be penalized, and this in itself can be a deterrent. Take a look at the speeding over 50 k signs on the highway for reference.

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.

__________________
Jud - TeamVDG - OTA#47

'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy' by Browne & Frey

Our rules already allow the use of FMVSS 209 compliant four points, but those belts are not approved by the belt manufacturer for use in all vehicles. You will specifically notice the absence of Corvettes and BRZ/FRS vehicles from Schroth's approved list which are two very popular vehicles in our series.

This rule is definitely a different philosophy in use by other established organisations. Philosophically I suppose that my views rank somewhat as a libertarian; give the individual the right to make their own choices. I believe that if there is a safety device out there that can provide greater reduction in injury in the most frequent type of collision we see in OTA, our ruleset should be open to including it. The fact that James Mewett (aerospace engineer, former CCC chair, and long time competitor and instructor) and Dave Barker, (medical doctor familiar with sports injury and the risks of motorsport, current CCC chair, long time competitor) are two of the proponents of this change have helped sway me to the side of having this discussion.

I compete in a car with a six+ point cage, I have six point belts and seats with wings, I have a Simpson Rage Pro FHR, so this rule decision is to help and/or affect others, not for me. Would a special waiver and counselling from a scrutineer cover our obligation in this regard?

In the end, we are a division of CASC-OR which has a safety committee that advises on these matters. I'll invite George McCullough to attend our meeting so that he can hear both sides of the story rather than my re-iterated versions.

The absence of the BRZ in the Schroth approved list is why I'm not currently using a four-point belt, however other drivers might benefit from a new rule. Schroth actually states that two of their four-point harness products are compatible with the Hans device namely the Profi ASM II and the Quick Fit Pro.

"The Profi II ASM shoulder is only available in 3" width but is still suitable for use with a Forward Neck Restraint such as a HANS device" from the first link below.

"Schroth's revolutionary Quick Fit Pro is the world's first 4 point harness that is designed to be used with a HANS Device in your stock seats! Now the safety and peace of mind that come from driving with a HANS device is available to the Driver's School and Open track day participant."

A driver from the Calabogie GT Challenge series uses the Schroth Quick-fit four-point with ASM and a Hans device in a BMW 1M without a roll cage. The series allows point-by passing anywhere on the track.

__________________
CarGuy - Subaru BRZ #57
Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting. Steve McQueen

I have always been a proponent of rules enforcement. The listing of possible penalties sends a clear message to those who might circumvent rules that they will be penalized, and this in itself can be a deterrent. Take a look at the speeding over 50 k signs on the highway for reference.

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.

or set it up as a "parc ferme" style, after the event or last heat of class run, the top 3 in each class park there vehicles in a section where they cannot be tampered with and get re-scrutineered to ensure all mods were properly declared and abide by regulation.

In addition, I think the series needs to have random spot checks of a complete class or classes at events. Much like the Ride Program.

It all comes out in the wash when a protest is filed. Sometimes the undeclared PIPs may be internal to an engine or tranny and not easily detectable by anything other than a dyno.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carguy

The absence of the BRZ in the Schroth approved list is why I'm not currently using a four-point belt, however other drivers might benefit from a new rule. Schroth actually states that two of their four-point harness products are compatible with the Hans device namely the Profi ASM II and the Quick Fit Pro.

"The Profi II ASM shoulder is only available in 3" width but is still suitable for use with a Forward Neck Restraint such as a HANS device" from the first link below.

"Schroth's revolutionary Quick Fit Pro is the world's first 4 point harness that is designed to be used with a HANS Device in your stock seats! Now the safety and peace of mind that come from driving with a HANS device is available to the Driver's School and Open track day participant."

I have 2 concerns with this system:
1 it is only available in cars with a back seat and
2 is seems that the shoulder straps are mounted too low resulting in significant seat compression in a frontal impact.

What comes out in the wash ? At the protest at SMP this year nothing was posted on the official notice board, nothing was posted in the results, everything was kept very hush, hush. Transparency itself goes a long way to creating a deterrent.

__________________
Jud - TeamVDG - OTA#47

'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy' by Browne & Frey